Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. Sh.Jatinder Kumar, complainant has filed the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 is a finance company and doing the business of finance and also deposit the money from the persons on interest basis and Opposite Party No. 2 is its Director. The Complainant further alleges that he has to work hard for himself and his family and in order to save his future, he also planned to save some money from his hard earning income for the betterment of his future and in this way on the offer and assurance of Opposite Parties, the complainant opened an Account No.370 with Opposite Parties on 07.04.2012 and also deposited Rs.6 lacs on the same day i.e. on 07.04.2012. At the time of opening of account, Atamjit Singh, MD/ Partner/ official of Opposite Party No.1 also issued pass book bearing account No. 370 dated 07.04.2012 to the complainant and said Atamjit Singh also told the complainant that he can withdraw his amount at any time alongwith interest. Thereafter, the complainant used to deposit the amount with the said firm on different dates and also used to withdraw the sum during the period 07.04.2012 to 31.10.2015 and till 31.10.2015, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.3,80,000/- due towards the Opposite Parties. The complainant further alleges that in the month of July, 2017 he was in need of money, so he demanded the money alongwith interest from the Opposite Parties. Initially, Opposite Party No. 2 assured the complainant that he will pay the amount alongwith interest, but lateron refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and hence due to unwarranted and illegal acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered loss and he has been harassed unnecessarily. The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one. Hence this complaint is filed due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- Opposite Party be directed to make the payment of Rs.3,80,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum till its realization.
- The Opposite Parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and for deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties besides Rs.25,000/- on account of loss and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
- Any other appropriate relief as this Forum deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the Complainant.
2. Upon notice, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and hence, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.04.2018 of this Forum.
3. Opposite Party No. 2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint against the answering Opposite Party and that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, Opposite Party No. 2 allege that the complaint filed by the complainant is partly correct and partly wrong and denied. The complainant has never deposited Rs.5 lacs with Opposite Parties and there is no record on the complaint. It is however, admitted that the complainant has deposited the amount under the account No. 370 and also made the transactions from this account. Besides this, the Opposite Parties gave him the interest on the deposited amount and on 3.5.2016 the Opposite Party has cleared his account on 03.05.2015 vide voucher No. 309 in which the complainant has received the amount after signing the voucher. Now, nothing is due against the Opposite Party. Moreover, the company has been dissolved on 06.05.2016 and the office was ceased after that and the complainant never met the answering Opposite Party. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of pass book Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 2 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Atamjit Singh Ex.OP2/1, copy of partnership deed Ex.OP2/2, copy of agreement Ex.OP2/3, copies of newspapers Ex.OP2/4 and Ex.OP2/5, copy of voucher Ex.OP2/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments placed on record by both the parties and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record.
7. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that that Opposite Party No.1 is a finance company and doing the business of finance and also deposit the money from the persons on interest basis and Opposite Party No. 2 is its Director. Ld.counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant in order to save his future, he also planned to save some money from his hard earning for the betterment of his future and in this way on the offer and assurance of Opposite Parties, the complainant opened an Account No.370 with Opposite Parties on 07.04.2012 and also deposited Rs.6 lacs on the same day i.e. on 07.04.2012. At the time of opening of account, Atamjit Singh, MD/ Partner/ official of Opposite Party No.1 also issued pass book bearing account No. 370 dated 07.04.2012 to the complainant and said Atamjit Singh also told the complainant that he can withdraw his amount at any time alongwith interest. Thereafter, the complainant used to deposit the amount with the said firm on different dates and also used to withdraw the sum during the period 07.04.2012 to 31.10.2015 and till 31.10.2015, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.3,80,000/- due towards the Opposite Parties. The complainant further alleges that in the month of July, 2017 he was in need of money, so he raised the demand of his hard earned money alongwith interest from the Opposite Parties, but they refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and the complainant has not received any amount as alleged by Opposite Party No. 2 vide any voucher. Hence, due to unwarranted and illegal acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Ld.counsel for the complainant has further contended that two other persons namely Balvir Singh and Dharampal Sharma had also filed the similar complaints before this Forum against the same Opposite Parties for the Redressal of their grievances and both those complaints were decreed by this Hon’ble Forum and thereafter, the appeals filed by Opposite Parties were also dismissed by Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The facts and circumstances are quite similar and same to the present complaint filed by the complainant. To strengthen his case, the complainant also placed on record the judgements dated 10.10.2017 and 24.08.2017 of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in similar facts and case against the same Opposite Parties.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the amount deposited by the complainant has already been cleared on 3.5.2015 vide voucher No.309 in which he has received the same after signing the voucher. Moreover, the company has dissolved on 6.5.2016 and the complainant never met with Opposite Party No. 2 and the partner of the company namely Sukhmander Singh Brar who was dealing with the complainant has already gone to abroad and the Opposite Party No. 2 has no concern whatsoever with the present complaint. In this regard, the Opposite Party No. 2 also placed on record the ruling of Hon’ble Maharashtra State Commission, Mumbai and of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. It is admitted case of the parties that that in order to save some money for the betterment of his future, the complainant opened an account with opposite parties and deposited money of Rs.6 lacs on 07.04.2012 and thereafter, the complainant used to deposit the amount with the said firm on different dates and also used to withdraw the sum during the period 07.04.2012 to 31.10.2015 and till 31.10.2015, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.3,80,000/- due towards the Opposite Parties. First of all, the copy of Partnership deed Ex.OP2/2 placed on record by Opposite Party No. 2 itself shows that Sukhmander Singh, Atamjit Singh (Opposite Party No. 2), Hardeep Kaur and Manjit Kaur were the partners of Opposite Party No.1 company i.e. M/s.Grewal Brar Finance Company and admittedly, the complainant was having the account with said Grewal Brar Finance Company. In this way, all the partners have assets and liabilities of the said company i.e. Opposite Party No.1 in which the complainant has deposited his hard earned amount to save his future. Therefore, the Opposite Party No. 2 can not say that he does not have any liability towards the complainant. As per Partnership Act, each and every partner is jointly and severally liable for the act of the firm and for dues of the firm, which was done in the period, when he was partner of the firm. Even party can claim and recover the entire amount due towards the firm from a single partner. As per section 25 of the Indian Partnership Acts of the firm "every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner. The plea of opposite party no.2 is that he retired from the firm and he is not liable for the act of the firm as per section 32 (2) of Indian Partnership Act "A retiring partner may be discharged from any liability to any third party for acts of the firm done before his retirement by an agreement made by him with such third party and the partners of the reconstituted firm, as such agreement may be implied by a course of dealing between such third party and the reconstituted firm after he had knowledge of the retirement. But in the present case there is no such agreement between the complainant and opposite party no.2 and other partners of the firm to this effect. As per section 45 of Indian Partnership Act Liability for acts of partners after dissolution "Notwithstanding the dissolution of a firm, the partners continue to be liable as such to third parties for any act done by any of them which would have been an act of the firm if done before the dissolution, until public notice is given of the dissolution. As per the version of opposite party no.2 the firm was dissolved on 6.5.2016, whereas the amount due towards the complainant is prior to 06.05.2016 and opposite party no.2 is liable for this amount being partner of the firm. Dissolution of the firm or settlement regarding the liability of the firm among the partners has no adverse effect on the rights of complainant and the partners cannot escape from the liability of the firm. The complainant has each and every right to claim this amount from the firm and its partners, jointly and severally and dissolution of the firm or settlement among the partners has no adverse effect on the rights of the complainant.
10. With regard to Voucher Ex.OP2/6 vide which the cash payment has been stated to be made by Grewal Brar Finance Company. It was specifically denied by the complainant that he had received this payment. In case, the payment was denied by the complainant then it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to lead some evidence to show that debit voucher Ex.OP2/6 was duly executed by the complainant. The standard signatures of the complainant were with the Opposite Parties taken at the time of opening the account and amount was deposited on various dates with the Opposite Parties, but no such evidence has been led by the Opposite Parties to prove this fact. Moreover, as per Banking Regulations which are applicable to financial institutions also, no payment more than Rs.20,000/- is made in cash. Therefore, the alleged payment of Rs.3,80,000/- should have been made through cheque etc. Therefore, the voucher Ex.OP2/6 has not been proved beyond doubt that it was executed by the complainant and further it was not corroborated by producing the account books of the Opposite Parties firm. Therefore, the payment as alleged by the Opposite Parties has not been proved to be made to the complainant. The rulings of Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh cited by the complainant are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant complaint. On the other hand, the rulings produced by Opposite Party No. 2 are on different facts and having no relevancy with the present dispute and the same are distinguished.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint in hand stands allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,80,000/- (Rupees three lacs and eighty thousands only) to the complainant as per the entry reflected in the pass book Ex.C2 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from its last entry i.e. 06.011.2015 till its realization. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousands only) for his harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum as per the law. Copies of this order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room after compliance.
12. This case could not be decided within time limited period because the government has not appointed both the Whole Time Members in this Forum since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Forum is doing additional duty at District Consumer Forum, Barnala and Administration Duty at District Consumer Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib. There are only two working days in a week when the quorum of this Forum remains complete.
Announced in Open Forum
